Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Spoiler Alerts

Some spoiler alerts would be nice. I don't think they have to show up everywhere- they don't belong on the Hamlet page- but common courtesy and all that...

See WP:SPOILER. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you look for information on a T.V. show don't be surprised if you find information on that T.V. show. Padillah (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review:Characters

I was asked to come make a peer review, so here it goes. First off, it looks quite good, although I personally don't see much difference from previous changes. But my main issue is with the characters. There are too many. I know certain characters like Simone Devaux are listed as main characters, but that does not necessarily entitle them to their own article. Now don't go hating me yet because I do hate it when people suggest merging main characters, but I dont want to do this for all of them, just the ones who had minimal mentions in the plot for the first and second season, and I would be willing to re-establish certain articles if more info comes during later seasons. So I'll start by saying who I think should be merged and a brief reason:

Simone: Only in the series for five or six episodes. Her mention could be something that describes her love for Isaac, then Peter, and her death. Not very notable.

Maya: Served merely as a way for Sylar to get to America. More info may come as season three arrives. For now, not notable. Claude: Simply say he acted as Peter's mentor and was a member of the Company. No appearences in season 2, Forgetable.

Angela: State her "evil" plan and her role in the Company.

Molly: Appeared for a few episodes in season 1 and a handful in 2. State her role with Sylar and adoption by Matt.

D.L.: All he did was try to be a better dad, helped out Niki, then got shot. Woop-dee-doo.

Isaac: State his role to Peter, how his artwork was important, and his death.

Linderman: Although he seemed to be a major player, he truthfully had barely notable importance to the plot.

That's all I have for now, don't hate me. Every other character was a major player in season 2, main characters for both seasons, or ones that have notable appearences for both seasons. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...judgements like these will be better noted once the series is cancelled or ends. who knows what the future hold for these heroes characters and their development.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We can adjust it in the long scope then, CiC. Until then, I agree, in part, with BYG's assessment. IF things change in the future, we can change our coverage. But for now, Simone and Claude especially have limited notability. Maya, Angela, and Molly are ongoing characters, DL, Isaac and Linderman played more pivotal roles in plot movement (Claude, by contrast, primarily served as a character development tool for Peter.) I would support severe pruning of Simone and Claude, and some reduction to the others. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If the character's importance changes then we can just re-add them. If you look at other articles you will note that then tend to A) have just the actual main cast members listed (no reoccurring or minor characters) or B) have a separate list for minor and/or reoccurring chracters.--88wolfmaster (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand and agree when it comes to recurring characters, such as Claude, but Simone, none the less, was a member of the main cast...not a recurring character. i dont think we can judge her characters notability...but everyone else, like claude, linderman, angela, molly and whomever else is not a memeber of the main cast, and i support reductions or merges in those articles, if that is what is being proposed. in the overall picture, when you look at television article, especially those of FA status, it is very common to have a seperate stand alone article for all characters whom are main characters, even if they were only involved in the show for one season. i think we can all agree to that. i think the confusion over this topic is simone deveaux, because most viewers, much like all of us, dont want to credit her as a series star, even though she was one. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't understand why all editors of Wikipedia LOVE to delete things. What's wrong with having Simone's page? It is not harming anyone, and it can be improved. Why must someones page be edited once they die? Just leaving Simone's page is not harmful, nor leaving Claude's. Now I know someone will reply by saying some policy is not being adhered to, but if the pages aren't, then just leave them! ЩіκіRocкs talκ 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I believe if they were included in the opening credits, they shold be included as "Main characters". However, that doesn't mean they should get a seperate article, of course.ZDLKRV (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Honestly, I prefer to merge those into a list of characters page, but I don't have a problem with keeping a character article. My main objection, and i think the more pressing matter right now is the lengthy table of characters on the main page, which could use trimming. I'm sure we could at least come to some agreement about that now.--88wolfmaster (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's down to less than 15 now, and that is pretty good compared to other TV articles I have seen that deserved less space (cough)ANIME(cough)ZDLKRV (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
How can the main character chart be trimmed? Tp trim it would be unencyclopedic. I understand that Wikipedia is not a list of everything about a particular topic, but who are we to determine which characters are notable and which are not? if they are a main character, then they are a main character. If I never watched heroes before, then I would want to come to heroes page and find out who are the main characters and what impact they had on the show. I do not support the shortening of the character chart. that doesnt make sense to me. As far as main character pages, I support improvement. those pages need to be improved, but not just deleted. supportive character pages can be improved, trimmed or merged. but i agree with wikirocks. to delete or merge pages is just lazy on our part, because no one feels like doing the research to improve the pages. why delete? just improve. we have been talking about improving character pages for a while and placing more out of universe information, but none of the pages have been significantly changed (althought a lot of users have made small and fantastic modificatons). so, i dont support trimming the main character chart...or deleting main character pages. i support improvement, and improvement in the supporting characters pages as well.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Well since we can't delete any characters from the table...why trim their "summary" i.e. one line each, with some having two if it is absoloute neccessary. For example, why do we need to mention Gina in Niki's summary? She was in 1 episode for 1 second, how notable is that? And this sentence "Sylar takes his alias from the brand name of a watch company," is it really needed? Is it that important? So if we give only one line for each summary, the table would become smaller and look better. Problem solved [in my opinion]. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Summaries have been condensed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Good job, it looks better now. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
AS per my edit comment, I've done a bit more clean up of the descriptions, and rearranged some of them to move the descriptions of the powers closer to the start of the line. I've also removed some time-specific "former"s (per the customs for fiction writing.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Good edits, but it's skeptical, not sceptical. Anyways I think we're doing way too much work on the table. When the cast gets too big, I tink we should delete it. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Skeptical"? Not if you're Canadian, eh? As for the table, I'm presuming you mean that we should eliminate the table-style formatting in favour of more compact prose. (Not cutting the information out.) --Ckatzchatspy 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that [Canadian's spell it with a 'c']. Anyways you presumed right. Once the table gets too big it won't look good, but I think for now it's fine. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 08:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The proper spelling is with a 'c', but I suppose we have to let the US keep it's little idiosyncrasies! :p I like the table as it is, tbh, I think it's much better than the old one. Ged UK (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Chart looks good, and SImone doesn't need her own article. Let that redirect to the list of characters page. Same for Claude, same for many others who cannot assert real-world notability. I've brought this up at the WP:HEROES page, but no one ever listens, and when TTN comes around the next time, I'll be supporting his edits. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree...chart looks great! i'm still not convinced about Simone. I am going to try to improve her article over the next couple of weeks. but i do support claude.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I looked online and looked through some tawny cypress interviews. i couldnt find any good out of universe stuff to add to her article...sorry. does anyone else want to attempt to improve her article?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say, the entire cast section looks enormously better than it did a few weeks ago when the peer review was started. The alternating left and right images help to break the lines up a bit, making it much easier to read. Compare to this version from two weeks ago, for example. Great work! Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Love the updated character table. And just my 2 cents. If the actor's name appears in the main pre-show credits, then that character should be a main character. If they appear at the end of the show, then they are a guest-star. It's the way that the production company hires them whether in a "starring role" or as a "guest star." Simone was a starring role. Molly was a guest star based on the way the actor's names were listed. Can't we use that as an objective criterion rather than a subjective one of how important they were to the storyline? Also--I question the addition of the line to Hiro Nakamura's entry about "He is convinced..." No other entry has anything like this other than the character's abilities, and relationship to other characters. That line should appropriately go on his own page, not here. Tedying (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I notice that there is a need of more pictures. Well for the cast and characters section, why not put pictures of individual cast members? I will try to put some right now. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Finished. I think the page looks much better now. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 04:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to be a spoil-sport, but do you have explicit authorization to use those photos? If not, you should not use them. The current atmosphere for on-line use and the free-use policy is that all photos on-line are assumed to be the copyright material of the photographer or the company employing the photographer. Unless there is a free-use clause (or the material is explicitly released as publicity materials documented for public release) then you should not use it. Tedying (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Since they're all free-use images, doesn't that mean we can use them wherever we like? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure they are all free-use images? Images have to be retrieved from the source (e.g. NBC) and should have an explicit free-use clause, which NBC does not have. If you go to the NBC site, at the bottom is a Terms of Use clause which says under 2.d.x that you will not "resell, redistribute, broadcast or transfer the information" which would include their photos. You would have to get the photos from somewhere that specifically notes the photos for publicity purposes that are released for free use. You should be able to find clearly and explicitly on the site that you get the information, that they either own the photos or have the right to release. All sites should have this under a "Terms of Use" or some such clause. Web-sites like Wikipedia are now considered "broadcast" of information and are no longer protected by the free-use clause. That only pertains to personal use, not public use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedying (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not called "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" for nothing. The individual cast photos are free and if they were not, they would not be in the article. For more information, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Good one demonhog, I'm not sure what he was on about... Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What I am "on about" is that other web-sites have been tapped by networks like NBC for using screencaps of shots. Even blogs which don't make any profit are warned not to use copyrighted material. The nature of using screencaps that don't belong to the posters threatens to put their images into the public domain and break their copyright protection. And although I don't think there is a problem with the headshots from interviews, etc, the screencaps from the show are the issue. Despite the little Wikipedia free use disclaimer, I think those screenshots could get Wikipedia in trouble if NBC catches on. That's why I wondered whether anyone had actually gotten usage disclaimers from NBC who owns that material. Tedying (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but Wikipedia will be fine. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed article for GA

I note that a comprehensive set of suggestions has been received via requests for peer review. I also note that all but three of these have been actioned. Of the three outstanding tasks, the voice version request counts as a verdict of "pass" for GA, or why record it?

The other two outstanding points — copy-edit and reference format — are not sufficiently "below par" (imo) to exclude acceptance at GA. I note the GA criteria regarding referencing at 2(b) — "provides in-line citations from reliable sources" for assertions that might come under challenge.

I interpret the GA criteria to be ensuring basic clarity and verifiability of content. This is distinct to FA which requires consensus that presentation of material has reached an achievable optimum, given the constraints associated with diversity of opinion inevitable in collective decisions.

I further interpret peer review of the current article, to this point, to be making effectively the latter point. Presentation of content, including style of expression and format of references has not reached optimal form. However, these are not grounds to fail a nomination for GA. I wish to stress here that I understand the GA process to involve both constructive criticism aimed at offering specific points for improvement, but also acknowledgement of high standards already achieved by hard work. Both these factors are noted in WP:How to Review Nominations.

Hence, I have passed this article for GA, according to the standards specified and according to the spirit in which this process is to be understood. Additionally, I endorse the peer reviews and encourage the team that has produced this Good Article to close off on the outstanding tasks and re-present the article for wider feedback via nomination for FA.

In detail, I find this article to be well written. The prose is clear. Vocabulary selection is slightly literary in places, the tone is exemplary for encyclopedic text — it avoids sinking into proseline, advertorial or fansite blogging. The text remains engaging without becoming informal, while being objective without becoming abstract or distant. It avoids complex grammar. Most significantly, it proceeds in short logical steps linking related material under an overall structure that provides a solid framework for a reader to approach and assimilate the information. As such, it conforms not only to specifics of the manual of style, but also to the general principles of clear and encyclopedic text the manual is designed to protect by exemplifying.

There is considerable, notable and verifiable content in the article. Not only is it verifiable, it is actually verified. In fact, its strength leads to one area for improvement — standardization of reference format. However, these sources are contained within a section dedicated to the attribution of sources as required by the GA criterion 2(a). OR is not an issue in this article. Nor is POV. It is stable, save for incremental improvements of uncontroversial nature.

The result is an entry that addresses all major aspects of its subject, without undue attention to details, in a readable and responsible manner. It is also appropriately illustrated, enhancing, rather than diluting, the text.

Thank you for this article and congratulations. It only remains to encourage every effort to push further to satisfy the criteria for FA. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fantastic! Good work everyone who helped bring this article to GA stat...Now, we simply need to clean up the refs and get a good copy edit and then i think we will be ready for FA. Thanks to user Alastair for your comments and upgrade...we appreciate it. The writers strike really helped all of us put this page into perspective. I hope we all keep improving...thats all I gotta say.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read through this entire review, but I have to say that one thing that stands out negatively are the unformatted footnotes. Gary King (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair comment Gary, we all note it, and it bears repeating. I take responsibility for unilaterally passing the article for GA despite that outstanding and accurate constructive criticism. The article cannot be passed for FA without that issue being addressed. However, credit where credit is due. This is an excellent article -- the content, sources, structure and illustration are just plain good, in fact, better than good. To be featured, it needs to be flawless under the scrutiny of consensus, and references will be checked! We know what needs to happen next, let's "make it so". Alastair Haines (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Hello editors. I find the soundtrack table very out of place and it really is an eyesore. Could we make it like the one here? Or maybe we could even make a new page for it. Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply, anyone? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you need someone to reply? No one is opposing, so just make the change.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to waste my time and do it, only to have someone revert it five seconds later. That's why I'm asking, and for suggestions too. So instead of trying to be smart, you could say something constructive. :P Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 07:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is difficult to read someones tone when they are writing. I was not trying to be "smart."--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK, well my mistake. I can see where you're coming from. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 08:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers to Clean up Refs

Hey! We need to get like 10 or 20 people who will commit to clean up 20 refs. I am going to start a sign up list for anyone who is interested. Just sign your name next to the refs your are going to commit to cleaning up. For example, if you agree to clean up refs 25 to 50, sign your name next to it below. We just got GA status and I think the refs is the name thing that will stop us from FA. Sign up below to clean up some refs.

Sign Up...thanks...--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering...Chris, why haven't you signed up? :-) Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
lol...to be real honest, I am probably the main reason we have so many lazy refs. I dont really know how to format refs...so I copy and paste websites...a lot of users call them lazy refs, or unformatted refs...sorry dude, but I dont know have to cite sources properly on wikipedia to save my life...i would be more harm than help...at least 70 percent of the unformatted refs are thanks to me...sorry...!!! A lot of users wont contribute to the heroes page until the series returns or get some more buzz...probably around comic con time...when that happens, I am sure we will get a better response and more users contributing...right now, the page is kinda dead because their isnt much to contribute.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's something for you, then - a handy script for adding a citation tool. You can read about it here. The script used to require installation in your monobook.js file, but has recently been added to the "Gadgets" tab (right-most tab) in Special:Preferences. Look in the "Editing tools" section for "refTools". Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like not many users are volunteering. Should we start directly asking people to help? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I say we wait...right now the page is kinda dead...as season three starts getting more hype and buzz, more people will come...a lot of the regular contributors of this page havent edited this page since the end of the second season. We will have a lot more activity on this page when the series returns from its 9 month hiatus...--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that's kinda exactly why we should get people to fix the refs now! When the third season starts, there will be heaps of new info, and then we'll have double the work. If we finish what we have now, then we won't have as much work for later. And for you're ref fixing troubles, try going here cite web. I learnt from there. The section meanings are explained below the formats, and once you pick it up, it's really easy! :-) Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken word version?

What is required for this? I have the ability and resources (I have done VO work before) and would be more than willing. I only have concerns regarding the mutability of the article. Isn't that an issue? Or is there a specific version of the article I should use? Also, what tone is required for the reading? Can some life be allowed into the reading or do you require the "NPR Drone"? Padillah (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of a sing-a-long. Or maybe not. How often would this have to be updated anyway? Once a season? Rekija (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably be a good idea to listen to other spoken word articles. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Sing-a-long"? Ho ho ho. Nice one Rekija. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"NPR Drone"? Had to wipe my monitor after than one! ;) Please do this Padillah! You have the technology! Just do it! May help with copy editing as an additional positive side effect. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it. I'll take a listen to some of the other spoken-word articles and see what kind of feel I get from that. I'll let you guys know where to listen to various versions of it. Anyone know where I can find versions of the "theme thrum" for PD use? Any ideas about using snippets of Mohinder's lead-ins? I have some StakTraxx that could take the edge off (and they are free-use, royalty-free). We'll see if we can't raise the bar in spoken-word renditions. Padillah (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the rewording "hatchet job" I did on Synopsis and fix it? I'm trying to make it read well for the spoken word version and it just came out all wrong. Maybe it needs more splitting up or something, I'm just getting it more and more wrong. Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken word help

What is the best way to read the parenthetical cast names? I.e. in the passage "In episode eleven of the first season, Jack Coleman (Noah Bennet) was upgraded..." should I rad that as "In episode eleven of the first season, Jack Coleman (who plays Noah Bennet) was upgraded..."? Or is there a better way to represent that vocally? Padillah (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


How would you read the cast table? Would you read the headings for each line? (i.e. "Name: Claire Bennet...", "Name: Noah Bennet...") Or do I read the frmat of the table and then just the contents? Padillah (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably more like "[character] is played by [actor]". That's how I hear it in radio productions, anyway. Otherwise, it'll sound like a jumble of words.

"Starring" list

The list was removed earlier in favour of a link to the "Cast and characters" section. I've reverted it for now, as I don't think it is too long. However, since the point has been raised, what is the feeling here? List or link? --Ckatzchatspy 08:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the one who inserted the link, I think it's pretty obvious which one I support. The link looks much cleaner, and I do think the list is a bit too long. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the LIST. Its more encyclopedic...besides, the list isnt too long to me...I think it is just fine. There isnt a limit on how long the infobox is and it doesnt really help to just link it below. the infobox should have info in it and not links to other sections. i say keep the list...its better, more encyclopedic and more accesible for quick viewing...my thoughts...any more?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, keep your ******* list! We'll see who'll be laughing when the list is as long as the page itself! **Maniac laugh** Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I really hope that was in a sarcastic tone (as evidenced by the manic laugh at the end). Padillah (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to prune the list. Tawney Cypres and Leonard Roberts are still in there for crying out loud. If this series is going to continue the way it has been and we are not going to prune the list to "Currently Starring" then we might as well just switch to the link now since the list is gonna get huge! Padillah (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That aspect of it has been discussed to death... "starring" reflects the entire run, not just the moment. --Ckatzchatspy 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would not mind cutting down the list so that it only mentions those who have been starring from the pilot through "Powerless" (Milo Ventimiglia, Ali Larter, Hayden Panettiere, Sendhil Ramamurthy, Masi Oka, Adrian Pasdar, Noah Gray-Cabey, possibly Greg Grunberg—was he credited in the pilot). –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend splitting the list into two lists, the current "starring" cast and the "retired starring" list which could include a note per character such as "(Deceased: Chapter 1)" Tedying (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Both options, however, involve Wikipedians deciding who warrants a listing, and who doesn't. Personally, I chose the list over the link because the length of the list doesn't bother me in proportion to the overall article size. However, it is much more desirable to use a link than to make judgements as to who should be included and who shouldn't. (In addition, we'd just be creating problems with the "Characters" section, as partial lists or split lists in the infobox would only encourage similar actions in the body of the article.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 04:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The list is fine, but I'd be willing to compromise in that the infobox starring list reflect whatever the current season is, and the cast and characters section remain indicative of all starring roles from series inception. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should live the list as is...this is an encyclopedia and the starring list should reflect the overall series and not the current season. It is more encyclopedic to include everyone who has starred in the series rather than us providing a POV as to who is important enough for inclusion and who is not. Yes, the list is long, but big deal. It doesnt change the quality or flow of the article.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Blu Ray Release and Season 2 release dates

Blu-ray.com is not a credible source for the DVD release. It is one of the only sites that is reporting the information, and no information about DVD releases and dates can be found on any credible or official websites. So, for now, we need to find a credible official verifiable source for season two dvd and blu ray information. Bluray.com unfortunately is not credible enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Thoughts? I checked Universal Entertainment Home Video website, Universal Media Village and NBC.com and found no information regarding the dvd. Does anyone have a verified crfedible source? --ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Check List of Heroes episodes. I found a reliable source (PR Newswire). –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the direct link if someone wants to add the info on the season 2 dvd and blu ray release

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Heroes-Season-1-and-Season-2-Blu-ray/9411--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)